I have read thru the "links". The "answers' to the "unresolved problems in physics" will NEVER be answered by theuse of "particles". Unless or until a different approach is used, virtually no answers will ever reveal themselves.

Any approach to a physics problem that has an inherent bias will result in biased answer...the bias being that "matterconverts itself energy". This is a virtual analogy of "atoms and their constituent orbitals" are "firewood".As long as the doctrine of "matter into energy" exists, then more and still more "magic" particles will be created.This is the only possible solution..."magic".

I volunteer to take the other side of this issue; that all matter is energy; and that energy resolves itself into the forms of matter. The proton, as SS points out is a widely prevalent form of this energy. Understand why nuclei and electrons and photons are in such abundance, and we'll understand it all. I tend to break down the physics into three distinct parts. Observable, indirectly Observable, and unobservable. I have many reasons to justify this. As an example I site Electromagnetism, specifically magnetic fields. While magnets, both artificial and actual magnets made of matter, we find that often the study of magnetism is what brings us into these areas of study. They are fascinating! Well, at least I find them so. Magnetism falls into the indirectly observable area. While magnets themselves are observable, the effect of the magnetic field cannot be observed directly. For the electro part, as in electrons. We can directly observe electricity as in the forms of sparks. Whereas with magnetic fields, we can only see them by their influence on other observables such as iron, and meter effects from copper wire, and other magnets, and electrically active objects. The connection to the two is such they're practically one word EM. Nevertheless, one is directly observable, the other only indirectly so, and I feel we must ask why.

So, I hope to take this side, if permitted, that we must try to include wave effects in describing fundamentally why what we see is going on happens. For this I point to the crude two dimensional moire effects. From overlapping radiating circles we create bands of constructive and destructive interference which radiate out as straight lines. We can then in turn create an overlapping pattern of moire effect from radiating lines. When we overlap these radiating lines, we get patterns in moire which strongly resemble the field lines we find in magnetism. Intuitively, we can see that these effects extend into 3D models of the same phenomena. It is my perspective, and others, that fields of potential fall squarely into this realm where the lines in moire represent radiating lines of potential which emanate from the nuclei and the electrons including photons. If we examine these lines, which can add and subtract from each other based on the two potentials, we find they are all related. And, depending upon direction of movement, as in a dipole, show up as lines of construction and destruction between the potentials to allow them to move through space, via time.

Personally, I feel that these radiating lines originate from Zero Point at the center of every particle as time. By considering that the nuclei represent high potential points in space, it is only natural that these are the sources. That every point in space is connected through the zero point, and if we consider zero point as the first extension of the potential, then every point in space is both connected at zero point, and disconnected as we move dimensionally outward from these points. That these points are either fundamentally connected, or harmonically connected allows both theories to be correct; and I alway assume every theory has the potential to be correct until some glaring error forces reconsideration. The theory of potentials, has some very sound fundamental and observable grounds for consideration. This is an electric universe type theory, and with very few differences is in high standing for consideration. That Steven is looking into these explanations is well founded.

I often think like this. If I can take something real, like a fan blade on a fan, and by spinning it make it appear to become an almost impenetrable object, even though it is full of empty spaces where the blade of the fan does not exist. How much more so could waves, having a definitive effect, oscillating at very high frequencies appear to be a semi-solid object, and it's possible then to perceive that at higher scales, not being able to directly observe these objects, that their surfaces would appear to be solid. That some photons of the right energy can pass right through them, and other photons of specific energies just bounce off of them do nothing to detract from them being solid in any way. Just like I can by moving my finger in rhythm to the fan blades while moving, can pass my finger through the fan, and back. Timed perfectly, nothing is solid. Therefore, we may consider that matter, like the blades of a fan, are nothing more than something moving so fast, it can appear as solid, therefore, we have matter. And yet, at the fundamental root of this issue, is the nuclei and the electrons and photons moving so fast as to appear solid existing as wave potentials. If everything is made up of these potentials, from the lowest potential to the highest potential, potentials are additive and subtractive as they propagate through space and more specifically time.

And, so far, I'm keeping this simple. I really like groundpotential as a concept, and would like to discuss this further. To me the key question... are we sure that, just as we can add potential's of nuclei to form larger atomic structures, how sure are we that the nuclei are the highest potential, and not something constructed of other potentials. We have to address quarks. There are fundamental reasons why a 1/3 charge of the electron is looking fundamental. Can we have potentials of 1/3e or other potentials as a fundamental. I like 3rds for a very good reason, first, 1/2 is a first harmonic, and the next, 1/3. It seems as if everything in the cosmos comes in twos and threes, so far. Personally, I think we might have some 1/4 (1/2 of 1/2), and 1/5, and maybe even 1/6 through 1/9, but much of that is "unobservable", so for now... consider 1/3's, even 1/2's takes into consideration anti-matter, as in the electron is fundamentally made of two particles, one observable, one unobservable when paired each separated by 1/2 of a lower energy potential, so we can't discount that this concept will fit in perfectly with QM, and perhaps, Steven is just the first to think of it this way. However, I'm going to suggest that it will be found to already exist, implicitly, if not explicitly.

Yes I agree with most of what you write in your previous post, and I think it is important to point out that although I often speak of particles such as protons and electrons I really see them as a wave. To me the proton and the electron is the peak and trough of a sine wave. Such waves take on different appearance depending on the observers potential. We normally speak of waves that are generated at ground potential, such as radiowaves, these are generated by a machine with one leg on the ground, so the wave oscillates either side of ground. For such a wave GP theory says that the peak and the trough propagate at the same wave speed \(U_{xx} = U_{tt}\) , U being the wave height i.e potential, but when the observers potential is elevated, this is no longer the case.

GP says that the crest and the trough ought to propagate at different speeds when observed from a potential other than the middle, and that the velocity of propagation relative to the observer is \(\Delta v = c*(\frac{\Delta \phi}{\Phi})\) , where \(\Phi\) is the proton potential.

The proton potential in GP is a constant, and functions the same way as c (velocity of light) does in the standard model, and as you seem to agree, so far we have looked at a lot of particles, and frankly we haven't found a particle more positive than a proton nor have we found one more negative than an electron, and I doubt we will, so these are the minima and maxima points in GP.

The potential of the electron is therfore a function of the observers ground potential and as far as I understand, ground potential is falling (this is what we perceive as universe expansion), so this means the mass/energy of the electron is changing over time, this is where we need your expertise in metrology, as you may be able to predict how long it will take to masure the mass change in the electron, and when they announce it, groundpotential.org may get a few more hits.

Patience is a virtue...

Steven

PS: Just on the issue of quarks, realise according to GP, the proton is a half wave, so it consists of a rise, a peak and a fall, three different potential gradients within the same half wave, neither of which can exist in it's own right. That sounds a lot like quarks to me ;)

Steven SesselmannOnly a person mad enough to think he can change the world, can actually do it...

Yes I agree with most of what you write in your previous post, and I think it is important to point out that although I often speak of particles such as protons and electrons I really see them as a wave. To me the proton and the electron is the peak and trough of a sine wave. Such waves take on different appearance depending on the observers potential. We normally speak of waves that are generated at ground potential, such as radiowaves, these are generated by a machine with one leg on the ground, so the wave oscillates either side of ground. For such a wave GP theory says that the peak and the trough propagate at the same wave speed \(U_{xx} = U_{tt}\) , U being the wave height i.e potential, but when the observers potential is elevated, this is no longer the case.

I accept that, the problem I have is multidimensional, if what I think is true, then the potential is higher because the nuclei, especially proton, have a higher potential than realized because part of it is not 'observable'; please bear with me. We're covering a lot of ground in a short period of time. I realize that you're trying to put this and keep it in frame with 3D, and a lot of your equations are 1D, and potential does originate at ZP; but, there is a lot of support for more dimensions. I think we'd agree that if your equations related one dimensionally, that the potential does spread through 3D, at least, so we'd agree that the full potential radiates in 3D at least. I propose that we see it that way, that sets it as a constant, and as the proton is a 3D particle or wave, I don't have a problem thinking about it in forms of natural numbers; In fact I prefer using pure phase, and don't like to normalize it as everyone else does, because I lose the potentials. Also, I don't discount time as a dimension; but, feel it propagates through the ZP (Zero Point), which would be why this potential is felt everywhere. So, the main conflict I see is what happens when you realize there may be a dimension or more we don't see, or observe, then the potential could be higher than we can measure in reality, but as far as existence goes, higher existentially.

Examining dimensionality beyond 3D, when we constructively add two waves propagating in the same direction having a 180° phase differential along one or more planes. This creates a destructive interference which brings both potentials to the same state at that point in time, which you say is annihilation. However, due to eigenstates, which is simply the difference of squares having the same value, but answers which are conjugates of each other. See optical phase conjugation for constructive, destructive interference has been largely ignored by most other than myself. For potential we'll say \((x+iy)(x+iy)\) [this is referred to as a sum of squares because the two y values are imaginary and when multiplied create a difference of squares, and create real numbers, or observable and measurables which we observe and are real as in reality vs complex, which I claim exist, but are not directly observable, with exceptions which need a lot of explanation. More on that in another post.], where i is the magnetic field property in the y direction, or i sin θ, and of course COS is the potential, which in my studies we must use for relating the magnetic field, which goes hand and fist with moving potential, even rotating ones. I believe it's intrinsically understood that wave cancellation is not destruction, but causes a 90° translation along the principle plane even with real numbers as a difference of squares \((x^2-y^2)\), which produces complex inner products, we see this when we use coils and capacitors where the potential and current are out of phase by 90° in the time plane, this is because the magnetic field is time shifted.

When these two are out of phase, it changes the potential power and the power becomes zero because the magnetic vectors are sufficient to cancel the potential in our 3D space; but, propagate it to the imaginary or real 4th dimension (not time) because the wave function is actually 4D and it shows up there, the whole field has been translated rotationally, which is why they appear to cancel in 3D, not anihillate. The potential, or energy is not destroyed. This is critical.

This is like the GP problem in that it is how you approach the problem in thinking about relationships. This goes fundamentally to the concept that energy can neither be created or destroyed. So, the question, what happens when it it appears to be destroyed, destruction is an illusion, it is simply translated along a orthogonal path which is orthogonal to the 3D we see as reality. The imaginary axis of complex numbers has long been used in EM theories, and do not negate potentials or your theory. It just shows how they can reach a ground state without annihilation. One might think that if we can't observe it in reality or our 3D frame of reference, it ceases to exist. However, we see potentials as wave function go through zero with respect to one another all the time, and the wave function appears to disappear (or collapse) where the paths of the potentials cross; but they always re-emerge on the other side of the interference paths translated rotationally. One aspect of this is known as the pilot wave theory, mine is a derivative of it.

Ironically, I think this puts us at odds, maybe, maybe not... follow me. Because I see wave cancellation as the key to understanding. It explains fringing, wave interference patterns, and a whole cartload of other things. Since everything is made of energy potentials, it's easy to assume they are destroyed in cancellation. However, it appears they only rotate dimensionally, and for us that means, out of view, or become unobservable, or indirectly observable.

Metrology is the science of measuring the observables. In the entanglement experiments where we find a violation of Bell's inequality theorems we do find that entangled states do produce a wave which propagates at around 10k times the speed of light. I find that interesting as you list that as the difference in potential.

Steven_S wrote:GP says that the crest and the trough ought to propagate at different speeds when observed from a potential other than the middle, and that the velocity of propagation relative to the observer is \(\Delta v = c*(\frac{\Delta \phi}{\Phi})\) , where \(\Phi\) is the proton potential.

I work in pure phase, and only use the speed of light when translating into 3D, however in pure phase I do not always normalize the function in order that I might retain the potentials because I feel the potential is intrinsic to the wave function (most QM normalizes the wave function, as they're only interested in what's observable, for obvious reasons). Since energy or potentials radiate in 3D, that has to be \(c^3\) If I'm keeping your phi's and Phi's straight, it appears you're only talking about 1D + phase, or compared to maximum potential.

Steven_S wrote:The proton potential in GP is a constant, and functions the same way as c (velocity of light) does in the standard model, and as you seem to agree, so far we have looked at a lot of particles, and frankly we haven't found a particle more positive than a proton nor have we found one more negative than an electron, and I doubt we will, so these are the minima and maxima points in GP.

The potential of the electron is therfore a function of the observers ground potential and as far as I understand, ground potential is falling (this is what we perceive as universe expansion), so this means the mass/energy of the electron is changing over time, this is where we need your expertise in metrology, as you may be able to predict how long it will take to masure the mass change in the electron, and when they announce it, groundpotential.org may get a few more hits.

Patience is a virtue...

Yes, I have a lot of it; I too am looking for people to disprove my theory, also. ;-)

The problem that may arise from showing changes in mass is that the ISL (International Standards Laboratory), and NIST with their CODATA recently announced that they were tying the standard units of measurement to known constants in the universe. If this is the case, then we may not see the change in mass, if they change relative to each other as long as they maintain the same relationship one to another. By doing this, they're pre-empting anyone noticing the changes unless only one of them changes, which it does seem you're suggesting. I saw your one image of the proton/electron annihilation, and I'm not sure how the mass of the electron gets less, since we lost one proton, and one electron. But, bear with me, I have an alternate proposal regarding geometry, and dimensionality as we know that any technology out of EM like radio, television, etc. evolved out of complex number theory and the introduction of i \(\sqrt-1\), to science.

So, if I'm understanding you right, you're saying that because the electron is so much lower, as the ground potential, it would lose mass. I'm not sure why you're saying it will lose mass. I know we have entropy, which is just energy changing wavelength to lower longer frequencies, or slower rotational momentum. We don't really see a change in the potential, just a change in angular velocity, which after a fashion is a change in mass. So, everything will eventually go red shifted; since all this is related to time, it may be difficult to see this if our time frames change in relation to this shift, as time as a propagating wave my also shift with respect to this, because in relativity, a change in mass is a shift in gravity, and time flow is related to gravity when compared to the speed of light. We always share a time frame with respect to our local gravity influences.

What I find interesting is that quantized angular momentum, or the spin of particles (wave interactions) turns out to be faster than light. In other words, the interference patterns, or the crossover of energy cancellations that occur when the waves conjugate can travel faster than light. I'm thinking this may be related to your potentials you mention.

Have you given any thought to the information we've learned from the entanglement tests, and proofs just released this year? I can link you to an article.

Steven_S wrote:Steven

PS: Just on the issue of quarks, realise according to GP, the proton is a half wave, so it consists of a rise, a peak and a fall, three different potential gradients within the same half wave, neither of which can exist in it's own right. That sounds a lot like quarks to me ;)

[quote="Steven_S"]Well naturally, that's a lot of protons and neutrons. ;-) As I was saying earlier, the half wave can exist (as in 3D) because the other half is in the 4th or complex direction. It's really the only way to describe the 1/2 spin integers we get in the standard models; and the 1/3 charges we see with quarks. If we think this way, a half wave is all there is, the other half is like the anti-matter version of a wave; only with energy, as in potentials, there is not destruction, only an establishment of potential in another direction. So, if you can think of it this way. The potentials when negating each other, create the central ground potential of negation by doing a translational, lateral spread so that it appears as zero from one plane, but shows up in another. Since we normally think in 3D, we don't see the 4th dimension except at times indirectly. However, if there's a 4th, then by implicit intuitive observation, there could be more.

Magnetism has always fascinated me. A long time ago, I asked... "If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, then where does it go, when it seems to disappear in destructive interference. Apparently it is translated 90°, sometimes we see this in our 3D and other times we do not.

I have a spreadsheet I'm working on which is a model of what I think an electron must be. It's very simple, but it provides simple observable concepts which shows both the Electro, and magnetic vectors, gives a 1/2 spin and has 3 nodes of 1/3 charge. This is because it's defined in 4 dimensions. Which means it takes 720° to make a full turn, not 360°. This would be referred to as a n-sphere of 4 dimensions. We have two spheres that spin in harmonics of each other, this gives them a fixed; but floating or translational nodes. With an n-sphere, as it rotates, we can only see 3D of it, because we are constrained in 3D to only seeing 3D. However, the whole n-sphere is such that it takes 720° because while one of the waves is 2π in 4D the other is 4π in 4D. So one wave is twice the frequency of the other. When these potentials add in 4D, we get to see a 3D cross section which has all the properties of an electron, with fixed nodes. There is also another harmonic of this first n-sphere, another n-sphere within the first n-sphere which has harmonics that are also related by two frequncies that are 2π to 4π ratios, but in this case the ratio between the two n-spheres is also a 2π to 4π relationship. This gives a π, 2π, 4π relationship. the single π comes into play because it is actually 2π, but only 1π is in 3D, while the other is imaginary, in the 4th Dimension, not time... or perhaps it is; but, I think not, because I see time coming from ZP, and it's another wave function overlaying the whole process, at 1/2 planck. Using π as a pure phase, this gives harmonics at π, 2π, 4π and 8π, with the 3D only ever seeing 1/2 of the last 3 at any given time frame, we can express this in real numbers as 1π, and you can square that as many times as you want, and still get 1π, 2π, 2²π and 2³π.This produces the 1/3 relationship of charge, the 1/2 relationship of spin and phase, and I expect gives us the results of the entanglement test without violating relativity at the planck level, such that particles separated by space, but connected by time, are still connected through the ZP (a special case of 1π, which is actually very complex and for a later discussion) , and confined, and their relationship is bound by 16π in 4D, which as a ratio where the electron potential is 1eV² -> 1eV⁸ in 4D == sqrt(1eV²) -> sqrt(1eV⁸), therefore 1eV --> 10⁴eV or 10,000eV for potentials, unless I've screwed up the math somewhere. What I'm seeing is that the electron is a photon wave bundle bound by higher potential waves, which explains why the standard model is unable to get anything but photons out of exciting an electron because the application of potentials below the potential of the binding energy produces only lower energy photons. If this is the case, then yes, it's a lot of quarks, which may also be made of smaller energy potentials, and the reason why you see the potential of the nuclei being what they are is defined by it's geometry in n-dimensions, in this case 4 or more. So, there's way more potential than what we see, and the proton potential is the potential confined to 3D. As you said, it seems really simple when looking at this from the perspective of potentials. We may not be at odds at all.

So, I'm seeing Tex is much like with MS Word's equation editor, I'll improve as I get used to it. I love how it's invoked, great job! Well, my daughter just showed up, so I've got to run. This is not complete or clean by any means, we can talk more, if you're still interested. So, I'll just post this as is for now. I think we have some common ground to work from; I really do. This may be a piece missing to my understanding for my theory. I'm happy to collaborate with anyone. I also believe in open source.

I won't quote all your paragraphs as it makes the reading very long, but I shall attempt to address some of your points.

First on the dimensions, you are right it is a four dimensional problem, but for simplicity and ease of understanding, I have only considered one dimension, and shall leave it up the die hard's to do the four dimensional analysis.

Matter waves as in proton-electron waves are obviously four dimensional and look nothing like a sine wave, I can't even begin to imagine what they might look like, but the theory remains the same, we just concider \(x_1, x_2, x_3\) to be invariant and focus on \(x_4\).

The fourth dimension in GP is simply a 90˚ frame rotation where the -x and x axis becomes past and future, and GP theory defines the point of total frame rotation as \(\frac{\Phi}{2}\) or 469 MV potential. Incidentally this is also the SR radius in GR. This is the excact point where ground potential is half way between the proton and the electron, and what was matter is now wave. One can speculate about what happens to matter as it approaches this radius, my take on this is that the infalling matter will have 469 MeV of kinetic energy, and will pass through the 90˚ frame rotation where the positive particle will be ejected into the past and the negative particle into the future.

You commented above on the change in the electron mass and it appears you did not read it correctly, or did not actually work through the equation, because the electron actually gains mass relative to the observer through the passage of time. This is not to be understood as a violation of the conservation of energy, as no energy is gained or lost. I could sumarise it as follows;

The protonMass/energy invariant, wrestle it to a halt, measure it and it will always be 938 meV

Ground potential (positive observer)Built from protons, this observer belongs on the right side of the energy equation, started its life as a proton, and through nuclear processes descended its way down the potential ladder, with each fusion reaction converting some of it's potential energy to kinetic energy.

The electronStarted it's life as the massless potential well surrounding the proton, and gradually gained mass with respect to the observer, as the observer descended the potential energy ladder.

Ground potential (negative observer)Built from electrons, this observer belongs on the right side of the energy equation, started its life as a 938 MeV electron, and through the same nuclear processes descended its way down the potential ladder, with each rung converting some of it's potential energy to kinetic energy.

Do you see where I am going with this?

Yes, there is a complete anti-world and it is right here under your nose, or in your nose if you prefer :) Each atom is both an atom and an anti-atom at the same time, but for some reason I can't speculate about, our conciousness is firmly attached to the right hand side of the equation, but there is an anti-you and an anti-me on the other side, mirroring what we are doing right now.

Energy wise I do not see the need to postulate additional energy in the fourth dimension as you suggest, I trust the GP equation which essentially says there is a flip side to life, and just like a piece of paper where you can write on both sides.

I think if you look at the GP equation carefully you will see what I mean.

Later I will try to show how a biased observer see matter waves travel in closed geodesics, and how this causes quantisation. But please let's do this in bite sized chunks..

Steven

Steven SesselmannOnly a person mad enough to think he can change the world, can actually do it...

Ok, yes, I see what you mean that the electron gains, and the proton loses. It was the time frame I heard but apparently balked or blocked.

(edit: I left this entire writing intact, but I did meander a bit, before I reached the point, at least the point as I think you're trying to make, but hopefully I made progress, and can move from there at least - bear with me, I got a little frustrated just before I got somewhere).

From my perspective, since all units are arbitrary, then we only have relevance by their relationship to one another, the only real unit I understand you make is one where it's 1 to 10k of one to the other. As far as volts go, the standard 1V isn't exactly 1 volt, but is a value based on the Hall effect, and 1 eV is the potential held by an electron as it moves through a 1 volt field. Based on mass, this value is different, when examining a relatively motionless, or an electron at rest, with as you say approx. 0.511MeV, which I feel is based on it's angular momentum, which I feel is appropriate as a potential energy reference.

For me the solidity of a particle is also an illusion, and so, I think in waves, which are strictly defined by a sin/cos function, in appearance as well as in behavior which takes on the appearance of radiating spheres which is a spherical wave (like dropping a pebble in water, except to reference this in the proper frame, I'd quote an old Zen Koan, it's not the wind moving, nor the flag moving it is mind moving. In the frame I work in, I slow things quite a bit, to observe the wave structures I hypothesize. I'm not with complete faith in the uncertainty principle, I understand the basic concept of measurement interfering with the outcome, as it's a function of the effect of how the measurement is made, and the current tools available to measure it in conjunction with the wave function, and how that makes it what it is. Which I feel a professor at Yale does a great job in making simple, this understanding of why the uncertainty principle holds as a function of the wave. http://oyc.yale.edu/physics/phys-201/lecture-19.

As these wave functions describe potential; I'm not sure what you're saying the proton and electron relationship is to each other when it's matter vs wave, which I feel are one and the same. Where I fail is how you make the statement "ground potential is half way between the proton and the electron, and what was matter is now wave.", So, what was it before wave, as matter? You said, "a biased observer see matter waves travel in closed geodesics". I wouldn't say geodesics, but I would still say waves, the quantization is of the potential being described by the uncertainty principle and planck's constant. Now, I could think of all this potential, without necessarily thinking of it's shape; but, to what end? So, if you're saying that quantization causes this bias, I'm with you there, it does cause this way of thinking;

Where I don't follow is where the statement "The fourth dimension in GP is simply a 90˚ frame rotation where the -x and x axis becomes past and future" comes from. (edit: actually I go there later, maybe). I don't think of time as the 4th dimension, as I said, I think of it as something else. Is this where we break down in communication. Are you calling time, the 4th dimension. I'd like to see your understanding of how the past and future come into play, if you're calling time a 4th dimension, then I'd follow you, and I guess you'll define how we don't need anything else other than the three, and time. Which you know, QM strongly disagrees on time being the 4th dimension, and that this is a very classical perspective to think this way. But, I'm used to thinking classically, it used to be what I did best. So, that's one source of misunderstanding on my part of what you're saying. (edit: I do try to shift frames later).

I'm also not clear on what the time frames is that you consider for the Proton, and electron lose and gain potential, and how this is 90° is a time based one, or why and how they shoot off into the past and future.It seems, now, that possibly you're taking all the talk of eigenstates and rotation instead of talking about complex numbers and reality you replace that with time as the product of complex states and a fourth dimension. So, I guess I'd have to get that cleared up first. Baby Steps.

(edit: I start shifting here) I do think of time as a dimension, but I think of it as the first dimension, or more exactly I think of it as a type of symmetrical fractal at the zeroth dimension, which radiates outward, here, in one direction as the Zero Point energy which manifests first at 1/2 planck. For me, there's an entire universe between Zero, and one, which is much like, but not exactly like, the mirror you mention.

(edit: An aside) Another thing you said, which I missed because of the reference to SR radius in GR.What exactly do you mean SR radius in GR; I'm assuming GR means general relativity; but, SR? Are you talking orbitals? So, I'd at least get on that page. I slowed down a bit, as I'm seeing where we differ, that at least is a good thing.

(edit: getting back into it, I digress) I did take a little offense at your statement: "First on the dimensions, you are right it is a four dimensional problem, but for simplicity and ease of understanding, I have only considered one dimension, and shall leave it up the die hard's to do the four dimensional analysis."

(edit: I continue to digress, but fortunately, my mind does it's best work when I don't think) But, I'll try to accept that as is... With the world being 3D, and everyone considering dimensions, one cannot avoid talking and expressing a theory in more than one dimension. Although I could consider it if we're talking potential in a point particle; but, I don't and can't find a way to justify the proton or electron as a point particle in one dimension. Unless you are only strictly talking about time as a dimension only in reference to the potentials. (edit: AHA) Then, yes, time is in one dimension, call it +/- x or y or z or whatever, then I understand. So, is that the right perspective? The potential is what it is, and your only references are to time as a line, with vectors past and future, and Amplitude, or resultant of potentials, which are orthogonal to the time line?

If that's the case, then I'd like to hear the justification, why the one potential goes to the past, and the other to the future when they meet in the middle. I can't see that axiomatically. (edit: And I still can't as what is + (positive), and what is - (negative) is arbitrary, many state we got the electron charge wrong, it should have been + instead of -, and it caused us to flip everything)

(edit: sigh, more digression) However, we have to extend this dimensionally, as a theory, if you want to argue a bias in geodesic matter, as that is at least three dimensions, and if one can't describe radiating potential as waves, the proof exists to show that it's true, potential comes in packets based on planck. (edit: AHA, again) On the other hand, uniformity in fields is a wave based equilibrium, and I believe that's classical. It's only flat when everything is at the same potential, and I am now thinking that maybe that's what your saying when you make electrons and photons the same; but, at different ends of time. (edit: did I get there?) If so, then you'd have to specify how long it would take for us to see a change in potential between the two; because it's not thought of in that way. But, giving it some thought, the probability is that this is a huge scale, and we might never see it change in many, many lifetimes, because from the QM and QED perspective, the cosmos will fall apart before then, possibly. But, rest assured, because these are well known values, if it happens in a way we can see it, we'd see it. Either that, or because as one goes up and the other goes down, and because we're at one end of the potential, or even between the potentials, it wouldn't matter because it would be equivalent to shrinking the whole scale, and since everything is relative, no one would know. Interesting. In that case, I'd ask if it matters.

So, maybe somewhere in there I made a glimmer of understanding; point me again. Baby steps.

chip wrote:Ok, yes, I see what you mean that the electron gains, and the proton loses. It was the time frame I heard but apparently balked or blocked.

I guess it is important to mention here that neither the electron nor the proton physically changes, the mass change is perception based on change to the observers potential.\[ \Delta v = c (\frac{\Delta \phi}{\Phi}) \]It simply states that bodies with differing potential move in relation to one another.

chip wrote:From my perspective, since all units are arbitrary, then we only have relevance by their relationship to one another, the only real unit I understand you make is one where it's 1 to 10k of one to the other. As far as volts go, the standard 1V isn't exactly 1 volt, but is a value based on the Hall effect, and 1 eV is the potential held by an electron as it moves through a 1 volt field. Based on mass, this value is different, when examining a relatively motionless, or an electron at rest, with as you say approx. 0.511MeV, which I feel is based on it's angular momentum, which I feel is appropriate as a potential energy reference.

The potential I give to the electron is simply it's total mass energy divided by 1 electron. , there is no meaningful way to look at what this is, other than to say that there is a given mount of energy contained within a known radius, therefore at its surface this particle has a gradient of 0.511 MV.

chip wrote:For me the solidity of a particle is also an illusion, and so, I think in waves, which are strictly defined by a sin/cos function,

Yes, same for me, and in GP theory waves behave like particles, where the crest and the trough of the wave propagate independently according to the equation above, so you can see that the way a wave moves has nothing to do with the wave itself and all to do with the observer.

chip wrote:As these wave functions describe potential; I'm not sure what you're saying the proton and electron relationship is to each other when it's matter vs wave, which I feel are one and the same. Where I fail is how you make the statement "ground potential is half way between the proton and the electron, and what was matter is now wave.

It is undisputable from GP theory, that the electron and the proton are a particle pair, yes, the same kind of particle pair as Dirac describes. Weather a particle or wave depends only on the observers potential. Now we are coming to the point where we need to change our way of thinking.

A hydrogen atom is essentially such a particle pair, and electron and a proton with a total energy of around 939 MeV, but it's actual form, particle wave etc is not an intrinsic property of the atom itself, it is a property of the observers potential.

chip wrote:So, what was it before wave, as matter? You said, "a biased observer see matter waves travel in closed geodesics". I wouldn't say geodesics, but I would still say waves, the quantization is of the potential being described by the uncertainty principle and planck's constant. Now, I could think of all this potential, without necessarily thinking of it's shape; but, to what end? So, if you're saying that quantization causes this bias, I'm with you there, it does cause this way of thinking;

Yea I know it's it's confusing at first, but try to get used to the idea that matter doesn't have properties, matter only has energy, it's the observer who brings the property. The cat doesn't have a state unless there is something to observe it.

chip wrote:Where I don't follow is where the statement "The fourth dimension in GP is simply a 90˚ frame rotation where the -x and x axis becomes past and future" comes from. (edit: actually I go there later, maybe). I don't think of time as the 4th dimension, as I said, I think of it as something else. Is this where we break down in communication. Are you calling time, the 4th dimension. I'd like to see your understanding of how the past and future come into play, if you're calling time a 4th dimension, then I'd follow you, and I guess you'll define how we don't need anything else other than the three, and time. Which you know, QM strongly disagrees on time being the 4th dimension, and that this is a very classical perspective to think this way. But, I'm used to thinking classically, it used to be what I did best. So, that's one source of misunderstanding on my part of what you're saying. (edit: I do try to shift frames later).

I don't think there is any difference at all between the four dimensions other than one of the dimensions being rotated out of sight. Similar to looking at a pencil side on, from the tip and from the rubber end, this is actually a good analogy for the proton and electron.

chip wrote:I'm also not clear on what the time frames is that you consider for the Proton, and electron lose and gain potential, and how this is 90° is a time based one, or why and how they shoot off into the past and future.It seems, now, that possibly you're taking all the talk of eigenstates and rotation instead of talking about complex numbers and reality you replace that with time as the product of complex states and a fourth dimension. So, I guess I'd have to get that cleared up first. Baby Steps.

It's not 100% clear what you mean by the question above, you may have to rephrase it for me.

chip wrote:(edit: I start shifting here) I do think of time as a dimension, but I think of it as the first dimension, or more exactly I think of it as a type of symmetrical fractal at the zeroth dimension, which radiates outward, here, in one direction as the Zero Point energy which manifests first at 1/2 planck. For me, there's an entire universe between Zero, and one, which is much like, but not exactly like, the mirror you mention.

(edit: An aside) Another thing you said, which I missed because of the reference to SR radius in GR.What exactly do you mean SR radius in GR; I'm assuming GR means general relativity; but, SR? Are you talking orbitals? So, I'd at least get on that page. I slowed down a bit, as I'm seeing where we differ, that at least is a good thing.

Yes sorry, when I talk of SR radius I mean Schwartchild Radius.

chip wrote:(edit: getting back into it, I digress) I did take a little offense at your statement: "First on the dimensions, you are right it is a four dimensional problem, but for simplicity and ease of understanding, I have only considered one dimension, and shall leave it up the die hard's to do the four dimensional analysis."

Sorry was not meant to offend, the dimensionality problem needs to be tackled very carefully, because from the observers point of view it is a one dimensional problem, because the observer as we normally concider can only have one potential. This is my argument directed at the LIGO experiment, that gravity waves can't distort the arms of LIGO independently, as the observer can only have one potential at the time, so if a gravity wave passes through the observation part of LIGO both arms contract and expand simultaneously.

chip wrote:(edit: I continue to digress, but fortunately, my mind does it's best work when I don't think) But, I'll try to accept that as is... With the world being 3D, and everyone considering dimensions, one cannot avoid talking and expressing a theory in more than one dimension. Although I could consider it if we're talking potential in a point particle; but, I don't and can't find a way to justify the proton or electron as a point particle in one dimension. Unless you are only strictly talking about time as a dimension only in reference to the potentials. (edit: AHA) Then, yes, time is in one dimension, call it +/- x or y or z or whatever, then I understand. So, is that the right perspective? The potential is what it is, and your only references are to time as a line, with vectors past and future, and Amplitude, or resultant of potentials, which are orthogonal to the time line?

The arrow of time points in the direction of lower potential, we know this is true, because the aple falling off a branch never fails to arrive in it's own future. Therefore we can extend that arrow infinitely into the past (radially outwards) and into the future (inwards). So the passage of time is caused by our gradual collapse inwards. This continuous fall in potential is caused by nuclear decay happening all around us.

chip wrote:If that's the case, then I'd like to hear the justification, why the one potential goes to the past, and the other to the future when they meet in the middle. I can't see that axiomatically. (edit: And I still can't as what is + (positive), and what is - (negative) is arbitrary, many state we got the electron charge wrong, it should have been + instead of -, and it caused us to flip everything)

The potential in any one region of space seems to be determined by the density of matter in that space. Take the mass energy in eV and divide it by the number of nucleons and you will have the surface potential of that body (providing it is not accelerating)

chip wrote:(edit: sigh, more digression) However, we have to extend this dimensionally, as a theory, if you want to argue a bias in geodesic matter, as that is at least three dimensions, and if one can't describe radiating potential as waves, the proof exists to show that it's true, potential comes in packets based on planck. (edit: AHA, again) On the other hand, uniformity in fields is a wave based equilibrium, and I believe that's classical. It's only flat when everything is at the same potential, and I am now thinking that maybe that's what your saying when you make electrons and photons the same; but, at different ends of time. (edit: did I get there?) If so, then you'd have to specify how long it would take for us to see a change in potential between the two; because it's not thought of in that way. But, giving it some thought, the probability is that this is a huge scale, and we might never see it change in many, many lifetimes, because from the QM and QED perspective, the cosmos will fall apart before then, possibly. But, rest assured, because these are well known values, if it happens in a way we can see it, we'd see it. Either that, or because as one goes up and the other goes down, and because we're at one end of the potential, or even between the potentials, it wouldn't matter because it would be equivalent to shrinking the whole scale, and since everything is relative, no one would know. Interesting. In that case, I'd ask if it matters.

Just to get a rough idea how fast ground potential is falling, GP theory says that current Earth ground potential is 930 MV and the proton potential (max potential) is 938 MV, this means we have fallen 8,000,000 volts since the beginning of time, so lets divide it by Google's figure for the age of the universe 13.8 Billion Years and get 0.000579 Volts per year. It's half a millivolt, which doesnt sound like much, but time flies and since the Romans were in charge ground potential has dropped by one volt, and since dinosaurs roamed the earth we have dropped 6,000 Volts so no wonder they were large ;)

Steven

Steven SesselmannOnly a person mad enough to think he can change the world, can actually do it...

I've pulled up your document again, and am rereading it. As you have undoubtedly already discovered, it's not that easy shift paradigms. I'm have difficulty and it's a cascading process, as I grasp the main concept of taking on the perspective of the proton at the highest potential, and can see how it relates. I've pursued a need to understand why that thing, and not something else, and specifically how did whatever parameter come about. Like, why dimensions, why energy and why do these appear as they do and don't look like something else. I'm going to have to think and mull over your paper a bit, now that I've gotten your answers to the obvious questions for me.

I generally think in terms of relationships and not actual units which are meaningless and arbitrary, unless defined in absolute terms of one thing to another as a ratio or multiple parameters and their relationships. I almost singularly work in unitless values, pure ratios, pure phase functions, pi, constants such as meliting and freezing points, a concept of no energy, and such. I'm having some initial problems in seeing how this affects the way things look. Give me time.

I generally think in terms of relationships and not actual units which are meaningless and arbitrary, unless defined in absolute terms of one thing to another as a ratio or multiple parameters and their relationships. I almost singularly work in unitless values, pure ratios, pure phase functions, pi, constants such as meliting and freezing points, a concept of no energy, and such. I'm having some initial problems in seeing how this affects the way things look. Give me time.

May I suggest a different perspective on measurement that might assist your understanding of such concepts? If you frame relationships in terms of limits on units it gives you the imaginative freedom of a unit-less definition while maintaining the real applications of units. This concept can be imagined as a goalpost for ideas. In the case of GP, the proton and electron form the metaphorical goalposts and the associated unit representations of energy are an arbitrary, but relevant, way of locating observation within the limits.

Through this method of thought, problems are analyzed in an open-source manner. Whatever information that falls within the predetermined limits is relevant to the solution of problems within the range of possibilities established by such limits. For an example in GP as I understand it, the precise (but arbitrary) potential energy of the proton and electron are solutions to the problem of physically identifiable "things" existing in the infinite possible combinations of wave-functions. It is because of the precise nature of the value of each limit that random possibility can be identified as the cause for each magnitude, and within such arbitrarily established limits, there exists a universe of physically identifiable "things".

The functional defect of this method, however, is a constant need for verification. Verification must occur in order to maintain the integrity of problem solution via identification. Where identification is just a one word reference to the process of defining and establishing values, ratios, and constants within a set of limits. What is my ball? Where does it usually go? Is that inside or outside the goalposts?